User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 19

Tom O'Carroll

You removed my link to a web page by Tom O'Carroll reflecting on his recent conviction on the grounds that it was a 'convicted criminal's defence'. Is that a reference to a specific policy and if so, could you provide me with a link? Thanks.Researcher1000 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the section of Biographies of Living Persons relating to self-published material (WP:BLPSELFPUB) is appropriate here. This asserts that: "Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties". As the self-published source is arguing against O'Carroll's latest criminal conviction and makes claims about his victims, I think this passage can be considered to legitimise my removal of the citation you added. If O'Carroll should appeal, and such a development is covered in reliable sources, any counter arguments contained within them could be mentioned. Philip Cross (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Researcher1000 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sally Brampton has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Philip Cross. Sally Brampton, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Does use of British/American English in WP include idioms?

Cases in point: in Sally Brampton, your revert of my changing "agony aunt" to "advice column" - and just now I read "knock-on effect" in the Call the Midwife page. I've long known the policy of WP articles being consistent in the use of UK English vs. US English on a per-page basis, adhering to the form in which the article was started besides the apparent value of writing on British topics in British English and vice-versa. However, I'd always (though perhaps mistakenly) understood this to refer to the differing forms of style and grammar, not to idioms whose meaning might be opaque or tone confusing to those using other forms of English. (As a user of US English, I find the idiomatic term "agony aunt" at best jocular if not downright derogatory, while "advice column" is neutral.) This is, after all, an encyclopedia - and I don't see the place of low-register vernacular when writing content intended as informative and understandable by global readers of English. My next step will be to clarify the matter of regional idioms in the WP Manual of Style and consult with administrators if need be. Should I find anything definitive that supports my premise rather than yours, I'll return and advise you. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither "agony aunt" nor "knock-on effect" are "low-register vernacular" in British English, still less "downright derogatory", they are perfectly standard form. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of language expressions accepted as "perfectly standard form" until they're seen as rooted in patriarchal culture and insulting to others. To this 1970's college-educated American who as a translator writes professionally for a global readership, I find the term "agony aunts" (which I've encountered elsewhere) derisive of people seeking personal advice via a media column and particularly of women who seek, give, and read such advice. Avoiding such language is an editing principle and I'd like to know where WP stands on this, regardless of an idiom's source in whichever variant of English. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

One could argue that you are trying to impose your own cultural prejudices on articles about British subjects. Such cultural imperialism is not uncommon from American editors in my experience. DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These articles are in the global free information project Wikipedia, not a proprietary British fan-mag. Asking for pan-cultural non-idiomatic language for the sake of all readers' understanding is not to suggest substituting American idioms for British. If your position is indeed correct according to Wikipedia editing practices, I'll suggest a Union Jack icon be mounted firmly atop articles about British subjects (do you mean "topics"? or bios of persons under the British monarch's sovereignty?). It would be interesting to see how this is handled in the Spanish Wikipedia, whose language has variant lexical elements across 22 countries. As soon as I can devote the time, I'll look into this. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sally Brampton

On 28 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sally Brampton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sally Brampton was The Sunday Times's agony aunt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sally Brampton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sally Brampton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Laura Kuenssberg". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 June 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Laura Kuenssberg, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thelonious Monk

Good morning, You removed Jean-Max Albert's tribute to Thelonious Monk and I don't understand what you mean by main article. Is this Jean-Max Albert's main article ? Thank you. --Françoise Very (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned there and properly integrated into the article (not in a bulleted list). The tribute section in the Thelonious Monk article could be endless because the basis for inclusion in such lists is imprecise. Simply being sourced does not resolve this problem, and I take the view that all tribute sections should be restricted in length. This is the approach largely taken with Trivia sections, although in Wikipedia policy, they are not considered equivalent with Tribute sections. Philip Cross (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but I’m sorry that there is no other tribute to Thelonious Monk beside the music field. It seemed interesting to me to point out some relationship to visual art, especially throughout structure. (Jean-Max Albert published also Thelonious Monk Architect). Thank you anyway.--Françoise Very (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hilda Matheson

Thanks for your edits on Matheson. I noticed that you corrected some of the text to British spelling. I thought she was fascinating and well deserving of an article, but clearly am not from that side of the pond. Please feel free to change any of the other text to comply with British norms. I appreciate the assistance. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Highgate School

It's in the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference so it's perfectly proper to call it a public school. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Owen Jones' defence of Seumas Milne

To call Owen Jones reputable and credible when it comes to reporting on Milne is stretching things rather far I think. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In comparison with John Wight and Neil Clark, who have also defended Milne, Owen Jones certainly is "reputable and credible" and worth citing. See the Seumas Milne talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The Sun

I refer to your revert on The Sun (United Kingdom). The infobox should be a neutral place, describing the paper. It would be best if it is just a logo displaying the paper or something like that. There should not be a reason to raise a controversial topic in the infobox, which can be done in the "Controversies" section in any article.

The tone of the infobox should be neutral, but the fact that this claim is even asserted shows that the editor who added it is likely trying to highlight that the paper is controversial (which it is), but this is not the main purpose of the article. Now, this would be appropriate if the article is "Controversies of the Sun" or something similar. Is it not appropriate to have a neutral description with a somewhat neutral/less controversial front page (which occurs most of the time), instead of highlighting one of the few front pages which causes controversy?

To put it in another way, let's say 20% of the Sun's front pages cause great controversy. It doesn't make sense to put one of this 20% in the infobox, instead of the 80%, which would be undue representation. Now, if 80% of the front pages are that controversial, then I agree (especially if there is a source to prove this). --219.74.85.176 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, Metro (British newspaper), The Independent, Daily Mirror, Financial Times and Daily Express, all of which are similar UK newspapers. The infoboxes of all these are only descriptions of what is in the picture, not assertions. All these papers have probably posted controversial front pages too, but none of these are highlighted, and I see no reason why the Sun should be treated any differently. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather than what is practised in the other articles, which Wikipedia policy article supports your assertions? As the image on its own is problematic, it is best removed. It is already clear from the article's content that The Sun has a history of insensitive and invented headlines, so a passage on the three-year old article (albeit much covered in reliable sources at the time) is unnecessary. Philip Cross (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is, yes The Sun has a history of insensitive and invented headlines, but does such an overwhelming majority of the general population really see it this way such that it should be included in the very definition? E.g. Saying "The Sun is a controversial daily newspaper" and "The Sun is a daily newspaper... Some of its articles/cover pages have courted controversy" bears different nuances - one claims the newspaper is controversial (factually untrue, unless 100% of the news is controversial), and one claims that some articles are controversial (factually true). The criticism in the infobox seems to be supporting the former assertion by purely concentrating on controversies in the definition of the article, rather than the latter, which is a neutral and true statement. Like I said, this would not be an issue if the Wikipedia article was entitled "Controversies of The Sun" instead, since the definition and focus would be controversies specifically.

It's just like while Boris Johnson has a tendency to be clumsy, no one would ever put a picture of him bowling over a 10-year old Japanese kid in his infobox. Neither would anyone put a picture of Donald Trump at one of his rallies in his infobox and caption it, "Donald Trump telling Mexicans to go home, which has been criticised by <insert all 1000000 individuals and associations here>". It just isn't right for an encyclopaedia.

And while there is no Wikipedia policy, neither is there any supporting your assertions that the infobox should reflect criticisms; hence consistency should be the best policy across similar articles, regardless of political standing - no newspaper should be condoned or condemned in the infobox. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Kattorna

Hello,

I don't know Swedish, but "kattorna" is "female cats" according to the Wiktionary (that's also how the film's title was translated into Polish). Chilton (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the Power Bros CD edition of Astigmatic. In the English liner notes by Andrzej Schmidt, "Kattorna" is translated as "Kittens". I have also seen "Little cats" in online sources about the album, but I think the album notes can be taken as authoritative as to an accurate translation. The movie title seems to be consistently translated as "The Cats", but English movie titles of non-English films are not always rendered as literal translations. Philip Cross (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they can (especially if they were translated from Polish - Andrzej Schmidt is a Polish name). Chilton (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In the PS of the onet.pl article (http://muzyka.onet.pl/jazz/krzysztof-komeda-astigmatic/n2d37) it is stated that "kittens" is not a perfect translation and that it refers to female cats. Chilton (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)